I've heard similar accounts, and anecdotally holds up, although my experience travelling for work specifically is limited. Incidentally, as a Canadian, I've been searched many more times, if not 100% of the time, coming back from the states than going in. Security theater in both directions though for sure, just looking for a slip up. Going in to the states, I once had a slightly vague answer about where I was staying because I'd planned to camp on a long road trip. They pulled me into the lineup and then asked me again, I tried explaining but they just wanted an address and hinted as such, so I just google searched a hotel in front of them and gave them that. They've got boxes to check.
Wew, this is great and all, but when am I going to be able to disable the list of trending topics or search history in my search bar, or at least hide it entirely? Never? I have to learn about the spirit airlines emergency landing and some bs about the NFL even though I'm not even in that country? Idk that customization feels paramount if I can't control what I see as I'm using the device.
Well, I don't know if it would be fair to compare him to your typical midwest American boomer who's been living in the suburbs since they were 27 and shows up in the middle of the day to protest against apartments going up in their neighborhood.
> Mountains are inherently dangerous, unpredictable places in ways that roads usually aren't.
Mountains are peaceful places without the majority of people around them required to keep perfectly attentive to their surroundings so they don't kill you. If you're in the mountains, your likelihood of experiencing dangerous situations depends on the environment, your skill and fitness, the weather, and maybe others on the mountain.
Roads are the most dangerous places most people will ever find themselves, much more often, regardless of whether they take on the responsibility of driving. If you're on the mountains, your death is caused by being severely ill-prepared or stupid, or significant misfortune just because. If you're around a road you're constantly surrounded by people armed with killing machines that nobody seems to have reverence for. You're in a life or death situation by default in any time you're not parked or stuck in traffic. All you or someone else needs to do is get distracted for a moment or fall asleep or whatever. Maybe they just decided that was their time to go and drive through a crowd of people.
In the mountains you could be in a very vulnerable spot, or you could effectively be camping, or just out for a trail run. Yes, bad things could happen, but there are all sorts of variables that matter to affect that. I've taken some spills, they happen, sometimes they've been scary, but I opted into that risk.
Both places are dangerous, only one is nearly always dangerous. While it may not literally be the drive to the climb that takes you out, I think the point is that being a car commuter or around roads regularly does pose a greater degree of risk.
You seem to be arguing from the idea that roads are filled with "killing machines" while mountains are "peaceful".
But that's arguing from emotion. The only thing that actually matters is statistics.
And statistically, it seems like people get injured far more often when climbing on mountains than when on the road to climbing.
It doesn't matter if you might die on roads because you "get distracted for a moment", because that's actually a very rare occurrence. It doesn't matter that when you get injured on a mountain, you "opted into that risk", because you opt into driving too.
The point is just where are you more likely to get injured. And roads seem to be the safer place if you're talking about hours spent.
Now it's about statistics but your comment was a personal, unconvincing anecdote by your own admission.
> You seem to be arguing from the idea that roads are filled with "killing machines" while mountains are "peaceful".
If you're a pedestrian or cyclist or passenger, you're relying on everyone elses ability to drive safely and not veer into you. If all it takes is a split second decision to do something different and simply turn into you, that's a killing machine as much as it is a transportation device. You can't do that on a bus or train without a gun, and it would be far from easy to do that on the mountains.
This seems like a bit of a reach tbh. It's no doubt hopefully huge, but by buying a product you're not implicitly agreeing with every or any element of internal company politics that occured during its production. I buy Macbooks because I tend to like most aspects of them, but use mostly Pixel phones, does that mean I support literally anything Tim Cook or leadership does to produce anything else? Not really, I just use the tools that work for me.
Oh c'mon, 16 years into a product line ain't too bad, is it?
If you had a kid when the App Store first came out, that kid would now be nearing high school graduation and you still can't do as you describe. The great recession, the pandemic, the iPad, proliferation of AI, legalization of Gay marriage in the states and weed in some places, annexation of crimea and the war in Ukraine, the foxconn suicide issue, 4G, LTE, 5G, fiber to the home, brexit, Golang, Rust, TypeScript, Swift, APFS, Arm and the downfall of Intel, the rise of NVIDIA, Netflix, TikTok, drones, electric cars, scooters, bikes, end-to-end design and construction of their mothership headquarters, and federal acknowledgement that climate change is an issue, have all basically happened in that time; but nope, it's for security reasons. Hell, even their lead industrial designer retired long before they'd let up.
Edit: Not that any of those have anything to do with the App Store, but still.
There have been such a comical amount of protests over the last decade for every trite issue that it's hard not to feel like most of those people would defs not be there if they had any sort of other obligation or otherwise incurred a cost. Not to say that's the case with every issue, but there's a world of difference between the person showing up on a weekend for a bit to protest for climate action, hoping to end up in a photo, and the person protesting the actions of their home country's regime knowing that their government could abduct your family that's still there.
I see people saying this a lot, and I guarantee during civil rights marches people were saying the same thing. It's a cynical and jaded and not very useful viewpoint, IMO.
We shouldn't be gatekeeping the ability of the average person to publicly petition their government for a redress of grievances. That's kind of a core function of an engaged populace.
Ya, in retrospect it does read as overly cynical and yelling at clouds in a way, I agree with that point. My comment captured more than I intended, but the civil rights example pretty much seems like a defining use of the term. Specific, tangible outcome, targeted, not trite at all, connected to a real oppressive issue of the time, but I can imagine people trivializing them at the time.
While I can think of examples that I personally think are a bit silly, I'd agree it's not really a useful contribution.
> Tariffs are in the news and the percentages are known. If I'm selling a wallet made in China, in the US for $80, and list a tariff line item of $2 - people will calculate and easily know that I imported said wallet from China for <$1 and start to question why I'm charging so much.
If they're clever enough to do that math, they're clever enough to infer the result from the quality and fact that it's made in China. The ways of obscuring that would be to have paid more for a higher quality item made in China (make a convincingly costly product), or make it difficult to evaluate the quality in the first place.
But I know you're talking hypotheticals and all. It is maybe worth wondering whether in aggregate it'll become more transparent that the U.S economy is based on adding a negligible amount of value to anything from top to bottom.
ski towns and places like Jackson Hole or Bozeman are unique in their own right but my understanding is that the demand there is mostly domestic-driven, amplified by a by-definition small housing market size.
this doesn't affect big cities near nature nearly as much, like SLC or Denver.
reply